Molly
please see my last 2 posts on 'Fertility Crisis and seeking the Gorgeous male" topic. I'd be interested in your feedback.

Mollydukes,

New Idea! (why not Women’s Day or Cosmopolitan also).

Some of this discussion is taking place in the forum on women’s voting, but an important aspect of women’s “liberation” has been giving women greater “voice”. Unfortunately voting for government does not necessarily give women much voice, as government can become corrupt, and there has been plenty of evidence of women such as Margaret Thatcher becoming corrupt in her administration.

Another area where women have been given ”voice” is in the countless “women’s studies” courses, but Christine Stolba exposed the wide-scale corruption, bias, and brainwashing taking place in those courses in her work “Lying in a Room of One’s Own – How Women’s Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students”.

A further area where women have been given “voice” is in women’s literature, and the vast majority of it is now found in “women’s magazines” which are extremely popular and outsell all other types of magazine. However Myrna Blyth exposed the hypocrisy and wide scale brainwashing taking place in this literature in her book “Spin Sisters : How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness --- and Liberalism --- to the Women of America” . Of course Myrna herself was a “Spin Sister” herself for over 20yrs, because she was the editor of some very large women’s publications.

Those magazines basically hypnotise the reader.:-
You are a victim.
You are being oppressed.
You are unhappy
You must have a make-over.
You must keep buying this magazine to believe that you are victimised, oppressed, unhappy, and in need of a make-over.

So this is where women are now because of the wonderfull women’s movement. They live in a world largely of their own making. They have a vote, which can often be meaningless (eg. did Bush really win the last election?). They have indoctrination and brainwashing occurring during their women’s courses, and a further insidious form of brainwashing and hypnotism taking place each time they read one of their magazines.

Of course the women’s movement cannot be challenged, because feminists regard this as misogyny. But lack of criticism or even objective analysis of the women’s movement has now made the movement very corrupt, and some of the people in that movement have the most debased and corrupted of minds, and some of the most minimal ethics and standards.

Of course many of them won't have children either, which is not necessarily the fault of men.

NB. In the past, the vast majority of fathers came home from work and gave the pay-packet to the mother. Not the other way around. No chaining ever took place, it was a myth from the women’s movement. I grew up in the era that these feminists talk about, and my mother spent half the day at the tennis club, at her ESA meetings, or at her morning tea sessions etc.

Timkins, leaving voting out of the issue, you must live in a very sheltered and narrow world if you believe that all women had it good before the women's movement.

I am sure that some women, like your mother, had wonderfully happy lives with 'good' men. However, my own experience is certainly not like that. I cannot believe that you do not know how bloody awful it was for so many women before feminism.

You seem to think that women now are very unhappy. I think you have formed a mistaken impression about women from the 'ironic' articles like the one that this discussion is related to.

I certainly am not unhappy. I am very grateful that the women's movement means that I have been able to buy my own house without having a man to sign the mortgage papers for me.

I think you are blowing the issue out of all proportion and blaming feminists for things that they also disagree with.

You talk of the women's movement as if it was a political party or something with strict guidelines and a policy. But it is not. It is a collection of individuals, all with their own agenda and different ideas.

It is not feminism that influences women's magazines to publish the rubbish that they do. Blame Rupert Murdoch for this. Blame capitalism and the marketing of products.

It is 'aspirational' values that influence women to look for unrealistic qualities and attributes in the 'ideal' man, not feminism.

It is the financial and social conditions that our materialist culture has created where children cost so much money that is the reason many couples don't have children, not feminism.

Young people are simply not indoctrinated by a uni course or two.

There is a great deal of reputable research that shows that for the majority of children, it is the values of the home that influence their beliefs and behaviour - not what they are taught in school or uni.

MollyDukes,

I thought feminists didn't like children, because children act as a barrier to women's advancement or "liberation".

Once again, you tend to look at the world through a very narrow viewpoint. Since the turn of the century, there were two world wars (which were totally unnecessary and inexcusable). However after each world war, most countries were in a state of economic depression, with high un-employment, minimal government money available etc. Put simply, there was little left in the kitty and it was “survival time” for many countries.

What employment there was usually went to the males, and it was not often an easy time for them, particularly with so many being wounded or traumatized from the war. My father eventually died of a war related illness, and so did many other men.

Survival time has eventually passed and countries have got back to normal. We now have more opportunities for employment, and women can find employment in many areas, but it is noticeable that they don’t apply for too many trades.

Feminists did very little in any of this, although they claim a lot, (like a political party claiming that they have been of benefit to the country at election time). Most of the changes to society came about from economic forces, or breakthroughs in science and technology.

By it’s very nature, feminism is “gender biased”, and for this reason it is “non-democratic”. Feminists also use misinformation, biased social science research, indoctrination etc. Very few feminists will bother to even recognize if members of the male gender are in need in some way.

Feminism is very much alive in today’s society, although it is not of much benefit to most women. The women’s magazines you refer to are written to a formula, to make women believe that they are un-happy, and being victimized etc (like a part of feminist teaching). But the “spin” is that these magazines then suggest to women that they should spend money at shopping sprees, or buy the products being advertised to make them feel like proper women. It is a scam.

Nearly all these magazines have female editors and female staff. It is their livelihood. No one is making them or forceing them to do it, as they can get employment elsewhere. Women are doing it to themselves.

No use continuing to try and blame males for anything or everything on the planet. It is not only very annoying for males, but it eventually makes “dependency divas” out of a lot of women.

Also see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3004#2416
for more information on what the women’s movement is presently doing to society.

Too right. I am sick to death of hearing how one will have no children if they leave it too long or the child may be deformed or the sheer terror in the voice of friends "but what if you find out you can't have them and you left it too late?!!!" The anguish they feel if you don't care whether you have them or not because they have been busy toeing the party line and need you to validate their decisions by also toeing that line. This is of course only brief anguish as they shortly afterwards decide that "Oh, you don't really mean that at all. You really want to have children" and so their loop of harrassment starts again...

That starts about 20 so yes, whether friends or media, I am totally over the role of fertility being pivotal to defining a woman's role in society also. Is it really too much to believe a female can be a happy and well-adjusted contributor to society without being a mother?

I would mostly agree with your sentiments LP. There are children involved in all this, and their interests have to be thought of.

So if a woman does not want children, then she should not form relationships with a male, or children might come along. However if she does not want children, then she cannot be using men as some type of scapegoat for her own decisions, or be regarding every male as being unsuitable as a husband or father.

If a woman wants children, then she should not think that she has to “snare” a man, and then treat him as a type of sperm-donor or pay-packet, or hen-pick or boss him around for the rest of his life.

Those women who “snare” a mate, then dump him after the children are born, taking the money and children, and regarding the father as a Disney Dad for the children thereafter, will find themselves on the outer in the future.

Those feminists that have established a career out of preaching “male hate”, using male villification, brainwashing and biased research, will loose that career in the future. It has been noticed that “love not hate” has never been a slogan of the feminist movement.

Those women’s magazines that try and convince women that they are perpetual victims, and will be perpetually unhappy unless they buy, buy, buy, (and of course its all men’s fault), are a bit of a problem. Maybe women should just not buy them. It would be a real test for the modern woman, to be spending her and/or his money on something else.